Rinku Darei Vs State of Odisha — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Orissa HC (2026)

Rinku Darei Vs State of Odisha — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Orissa HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Revision disposed of without interference with the impugned orders; liberty granted to the Petitioner to renew the release prayer after at least three months if the trial has not commenced, to be considered afresh by the learned P.M.J.J.B, Dhenkanal on a fresh social investigation report uninfluenced by the earlier rejection.

Issue for consideration

Whether the rejection of the Petitioner's prayer for release/bail by the P.M.J.J.B and its affirmation by the Appellate Court warrant interference under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

Court's answer

On perusal of the social investigation report referred to by the PMJJB, Dhenkanal and the learned Appellate Court, this Court was not persuaded that there has been any perverse exercise of jurisdiction.

Ratio / Principle

Keeping in view the welfare of the CICL, which is of paramount consideration and the duty of the Court in that regard, no ground was made out warranting interference with the impugned orders; interference was accordingly declined.

Key takeaways

Liberty granted to the Petitioner to renew his release prayer at a later stage, at least after a period of three months, if the trial has not commenced meanwhile; upon such application the learned P.M.J.J.B, Dhenkanal shall consider it on a freshly obtained social investigation report, without being influenced by the earlier rejection affirmed by this Court.ratio¶22
Observation that the spirit of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is primarily concerned with the welfare of the CICL, framing the welfare-paramountcy standard applied in declining interference.obiter¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack (V. Narasingh, J.), order dated 01.05.2026 in CRLREV No.203 of 2026: Criminal revision filed by a child in conflict with the law (Rinku Darei) assailing the order dated 05.2.2026 of the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge-Cum-Judge Special Court under POCSO Act, Dhenkanal in Juv. Criminal Appeal No.01 of 2026, which affirmed the order dated 13.01.2026 of the learned P.M.J.J.B, Dhenkanal in JC-01 of 2026 (Kamakhyanagar P.S. Cse No.573 of 14.11.2025) convicting the Petitioner under Sections 65(1)/65(2)(f)/351(2) BNS r/w Sec.6 POCSO Act and rejecting his prayer for bail. On perusal of the social investigation report, the Court found no perverse exercise of jurisdiction; treating the welfare of the CICL as of paramount consideration, it declined revisional interference and disposed of the revision, granting the Petitioner liberty to renew his release prayer after at least three months if the trial had not commenced, to be considered afresh by the P.M.J.J.B on a fresh social investigation report without being influenced by the earlier rejection affirmed by this Court.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRLREV No.203 of 2026

Rinku Darei

…

Petitioner Ms. R. Biswal, Advocate

-versus-

State of Odisha

Opposite Parties

Mr. S. Panigrahi, ASC

CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH ORDER

Order No.

01.05.2026

01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

Admit.

This Criminal Revision has been filed assailing the order dated 05.2.2026 passed by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge-Cum-Judge Special Court under POCSO Act, Dhenkanal in Juv. Criminal Appeal No.01 of 2026, affirming the order of conviction qua the Petitioner dated 13.01.2026 passed by the learned P.M.J.J.B, Dhenkanal in JC-01 of 2026 (arising out of Kamakhyanagar P.S. Cse No.573 of 14.11.2025) under Sections 65(1)/65(2)(f)/351(2) BNS r/w Sec.6 POCSO Act, whereby the prayer of the Petitioner for bail was rejected.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that in rejecting the prayer for release both

Page 1 of 3

the P.M.J.J.B as well as the Appellate Court have failed to appreciate the grievance of the Petitioner in its proper prospective. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

Learned counsel for the State opposes such prayer.

It is trite that the spirit of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children Act,2015) is primarily concerned with the welfare of the CICL.

On perusal of the social investigation report, referred to by the PMJJB, Dhenkanal and learned Appellate Court, this Court is not persuaded to hold that there has been any perverse exercise of jurisdiction. Keeping in view the welfare of the CICL, which is of paramount consideration and the duty of the Court in that regard, no ground is made out warranting interference with the impugned orders.

Liberty is granted to the Petitioner to renew his prayer at a later stage, at least after a period of three months, if the trial has not commenced in the meanwhile. If such an application is filed, learned P.M.J.J.B, Dhenkanal shall consider the same on getting the social investigation report afresh and without being influenced by the earlier rejection which has been affirmed by this Court.

Page 2 of 3

9. Accordingly, the CRLREV stands disposed of.

(V. NARASINGH) Judge

Soumya

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN SAMAL Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 04-May-2026 20:31:10

Page 3 of 3